|
|
Post by paultaylor on May 29, 2016 5:22:14 GMT
Gents, This is from the Pigskin page and you may have seen it before but I thought it would be worthwhile posting www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXQeOE2WXJ4 . It appears that this generates discussion and there is no "definitive answer". Please vote and state why? |
|
|
|
Post by Tsuyoshi Ofuji on May 29, 2016 12:39:40 GMT
Paultaylor,
I think this is tageting by 9-1-3. The defensive player hit by his crown.
|
|
|
|
Post by oyvind on May 29, 2016 15:33:03 GMT
No hit with crow of helmet I think that he misses.
There is a launch but the hit seems to bee in the chest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill LeMonnier on May 29, 2016 16:00:20 GMT
Crown of the helmet is the top of the helmet... not the side of the helmet. Player is still a defenseless player as a receiver, so any FORCIBLE contact to his head/neck area is targeting... Make the Call !!!
If you make the call as the BJ, will your SJ or FJ help if they say it's not. Good play for us to discuss the crew dynamics on when to help, when to pick up a flag, when to stick with a flag... we'll spend some time on this in our early meetings in Harbin.
I happen to know the Texas referee on this call and we discussed it last week in San Antonio... I'll share that conversation after we get more input from more of our staff on this play... Excellent play that Paul put up here.
|
|
|
|
Post by PeteThom on May 30, 2016 10:22:42 GMT
I voted NO, I can understand why the back judge called it because of the receivers head jerking back but what I see is shoulder to chest
|
|
|
|
Post by Endre Breznay on May 30, 2016 12:45:59 GMT
I voted NO for targeting, as the player made no forcible contact with the crown of his helmet (9.1.3.), and the contact was not to the head or neck area (9.1.4.)
On the other hand the player launches to the air, and makes no effort to soften the hit with his hands, makes the contact with the shoulder, and I could imagine, the only goal of this act was punishment on the receiver.
|
|
|
|
Post by Laurent Dubreuil (Larry) on May 30, 2016 13:57:43 GMT
I answered based on what I would've call on the play, real speed from the BJ position.
The safety drop the helmet and makes a forcible contact to the head/neck area. Actually, you see the helmet almost popping out. At 1:19, there's a slow-motion replay where you can see that the first reaction of the receiver is helmet snapping back.
Now, the very last video replay angle makes it very hard to judge. If a deep side with a better angle came to me to tell me he had a good angle and initial contact was lower chest, I would've pick up my flag because he had a better angle.
This said, if we look at the intent of the rule, to me, the intent of the rule is to take away this kind of action. Receiver has already dropped the ball and safety goes ''high'' to punish him, with his eyes looking at the carpet. The fact that the FS helmet misses him doesnt automatically takes away a targeting call.., because his shoulder hits the neck/head area.
Great play of discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arnold Buijs on May 30, 2016 19:19:42 GMT
I voted NO cause we rule on actual action and not intent (although oc the're exceptions). It had all the makings of a brutal targeting but 'he' got lucky by turning his head/body. The ultimate collision was his back shoulders high on the number of the receiver. Never did his crown of his helmet make contact. Yes it does looks like he launches at the last instant. Never was there direct contact in my humble opinion on the neck / head area in contrary to what Laurent believes.....That's probably what made the crew in the end take away the targeting. But than again these are the kind of plays the INTENT  of the targeting rules are to prevent from happening. |
|
|
|
Post by Laurent Dubreuil (Larry) on May 30, 2016 19:52:16 GMT
I believe helmet was contacted first or at the same time than the chest. Probably the facemask got hit. Even though the crown of the helmet misses him, he still got headshot, either by the side of the helmet or the shoulder pad. On the top end frame by frame, you see the receiver helmet looking forward, and then, at contact, head snaps to the right, in the direction where the FS misses (does he really) him On the bottow frame by frame, you see the receiver's helmet well in place, then at contact you see it popping up and right... @arnold, I say we figure this out after a couple of drinks together!!! hahaha! It's really a tough one... Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Bryan Currie on May 30, 2016 22:46:43 GMT
I went with no target on this one, agree that the intent to punish high certainly appears to be there but in the end the contact looks to be at shoulder level to me and although the defender dips is head near the end the crown didn't make contact. Looking forward to a lively discussion on this tight call.
|
|
|
|
Post by paultaylor on May 31, 2016 0:58:45 GMT
Gents,
Just clarifying here, IFAF 2016 9-1-4 is "No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a
defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul". Although crown is worth discussion, I understand the main area of contention is the defenseless receiver hit in the head/neck area.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arnold Buijs on May 31, 2016 7:31:38 GMT
@ Larry we'll have that drink no matter what ;-) I just wanna make sure we don't 'use' a head snapping backwards as evidence. A violant impact also make a head snap back just think about a car collision and whiplash.
nevertheless the fact that we're all so divided in our opinions means it's in doubt and therefore it actually should be targeting as Mr.C rightfully quoted the rule to remind me...
|
|
|
|
Post by Arnold Buijs on May 31, 2016 7:33:39 GMT
Paul actually.... oeps ;-) helped me remembering / quoting the ruling
|
|
of the targeting rules are to prevent from happening. 
